Thus, we have defined what we must aim for. Namely, first, the reanimation of the citizen, the responsible, risk-taking and enterprising home economicus, so that he (and not the ‘public servants” to which he has so far had to submit) may again take charge as the only true sovereign in his country. This requires re-introducing the right to UNDISCLOSED private property, as well as cutting the umbilical cord between the citizen and the state., i.e., his obligation to take down his trousers before the taxman by producing his income-records to prove what he declared (via his signature) to be his income.
This requires an educational effort that starts at home sand spreads to schools and universities, now a nest of ignorance and conformity.
All of which requires a built-in incentive for mobility beyond one’s cultural horizon, such as may be provided by an Atlantic pass available to American, Canadian and European citizens on the basis of existing – but mostly forgotten – bilateral friendship, commerce and establishment treaties. Moreover, a genuine catalysis for building a viable, confederated Europe-wide freedom of movement, establishment and exercise of profession, and should be issued to all citizens of member countries of the Council of Europe.
And second, the setting of those political conditions which will provide the fertile terrain for such grownup citizens to do their thing, prosper and find happiness for themselves, their family and the community they discovered to fit them best. This political frame may be defined as follows:
A nation, ideally extends over the territory within which the citizens’ duly elected and effectively accountable authorities are, ready, willing, and able to provide for its residents’ free and responsible pursuit of happiness – notably to genuinely protect them against foreign physical or economic harm, such as fiscal and administrative transgressions under whatever title that might be.
To be sure, there is no permanent ideal size of a nation, and the leaders of even the longest enduring nations, such as the Swiss Confederation, risk losing the family silver and put the national existence at risk if they fail to adequately attend to the qualitative factors which make up a nation and which provide for its continuity. Small can indeed be beautiful. Small nations are indeed usually more governable. And competently governed small nations are more likely to withstand the hurricanes of history and prosper in rapidly changing circumstances. They intend to be more flexible. But by and for itself, smallness is no guarantee of virtue – just as bigness is no shield against failure. The competence and morality of its citizens, their ideals, and their leaders makes part of the difference. The structure, standards and laws are another part. Size is another part. (pp. 17-18)
….
Thus bigness is an evil per se, as it always represents power, and power will always be used, In theory, if every nation were the same size or power, nobody could force their guidelines upon other countries. These days, the US enforces its lex americana upon the world. Imposing its standards, supposedly for the “good” of all. But much wrong is done in the name of goodness. Not all agree with US standards on bank practices, taxation, tax enforcement, tax punishment, money reporting requirements, limits on money transporting, use of cash restrictions, dismissal of the gold standard, drug enforcement, boarding foreign ships in international waters by US coast guard officers, tax avoidance classified as tax evasion, insider trading (although without definition) drug criminalization, ban on secret bank accounts, no right to undisclosed assets, burden of proof of crime on the accused not the accuser, etc. etc.
Yet the US is imposing all or most of its standards on every nation, even though other nations have laws of their own that are quite different. Often opposite. So, big is bad because big is power and power will always be put to use. It’s often a case of “I’m going to hit you for your own good.”
…
[I propose] a new European Community – the European Confederation, as proposed by T.G. Masaryk, Aristide Briand, Gustav Stressmann, Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, and Margaret Thatcher. Indeed, a Magna Carta II is needed. It is to secure the continent-wide peaceful transition from State tutelage to individual liberties and responsibilities. Not the bureaucratic, but the historic, cultural and social “acquis” [acquired, inheritance] of Western and Eastern, Northern and Southern Europe deserve safeguarding. (p. 103)
…
How big should a country be? The answer really is: as small as possible. What does “as possible” mean? It means it has to be enough to support itself…. The country should be as small as possible economically, which will vary from the Amazonian jungles to the snow-covered northern limits of Canada…. It should probably be big enough to have enough population to fend for itself not only economically but militarily- although this last factor will vary drastically from one region to another depending on its neighbors, on defense treaties with other nations, and on its defensive-friendly topography.
And why “as small as possible”? In theory, a country would perhaps be ideal if it were about 10 miles square. For then you could easily keep tabs in your political leaders and could scold them as you passed in the street. You would know if someone needed help for loss of a job or an injury or illness, and you could organize local assistance through a church or private donation. The government would not (and should not) get involved in these private matters. Public debt would not get out of control because everyone would know what was going on in the small town capital of say 10 square miles. Most heavily indebted countries are large, where the masses didn’t know what was going on with their distant politicians, and tended to think someone else would surely watch them. In a small community you know there is no someone else. This also builds a sense of responsibility. (p. 119)